True to a primary season already marked by sudden and surprising ups and downs, Mitt Romney has jumped back into the lead in Michigans Republican Primary race. The votes on Tuesday.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Republican Primary Voters in Michigan shows Romney with 40% of the vote and former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum with 34%. The poll was conducted on Thursday night, following the last scheduled debate among the GOP candidates. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

I see you are a proud Navy vet. Thank you for your service. Not surprising that you support Newt. So many of our military are supporting him. Those who pur their lives on the line, instinctively recognize a leader.

The handwriting was on the wall. Santorum really did recieve a free pass until just recently. Now that the vetting and facts on his record are exposed..he will go down.

I was hoping Santorum would win Michigan as it would help Newt and hurt Romney. Still believe Newt will get a boost in the polls after super tuesday and even beyond. The more that comes out on Mitt and Santorum and the more focused on Obama that Newt remains..the MORE people will rally and unite behing "The Speaker"

103
posted on 02/24/2012 3:04:56 PM PST
by katiedidit1
("This is one race of people for whom psychoanalysis is of no use whatsoever." the Irish)

I see you are a proud Navy vet. Thank you for your service. Not surprising that you support Newt. So many of our military are supporting him. Those who put their lives on the line, instinctively recognize a leader.

I think Rick will wake up smelling Newt’s roses, now that he is actually on the receiving end of the Romney carpet bomb.

I believe Newt will rise again, and hope Romney goes broke.
Did he inject himself again? Thought he was down to 7.8 million a few days ago. His expenditures must be the only thing left supporting the economy!

Do you have info on Romney’s cash on hand that is even more recent?

Thanks for all you do.

107
posted on 02/24/2012 3:09:33 PM PST
by RitaOK
(LET 'ER RIP, NEWT. Newt knows where all the bodies are buried, because he buried them.)

But you would not know that by watching the lap dogs on Faux news. Clearly the E-Pubs have pulled out all stops for this one.

Here on FreeRepublic we continue slinging mud at all the candidates, doing the dirty work for the opposition, when there is no reason to. I will vote for Newt or I will vote for Santorum, but I will to vote for Romney or Paul.

110
posted on 02/24/2012 3:11:22 PM PST
by itsahoot
(Much easier to tear down a building, than to build one. Bigger mess though.)

Newt said it would be a “serious blow” to any of the candidates to lose their home states. He didn’t say anyone should pull out.

Newt is the only true statesman in the race. That hardly makes him “superfluous”. He mentored and helped Santorum when Santorum was a young Congressman. To say that Newt has done more for this nation than the other two candidates put together would be an understatement.

“But I do find it amusing that you start quoting the Bible as you attack our Christian viewpoints.”

I didn’t attack your “Christian viewpoints,” and you cannot demonstrate how I did. It becomes even more absurd when you realize that my guy, Newt, is also Catholic and has all the same pro-life sentiments and positions. This is the blindness of the typical Santorumbot that I keep seeing over and over again, and it is quite disturbing.

Great post, Apollo. It is one thing when someone compliments another person on their courage, but when someone touts himself as “Courageous” as Rick did in the debate, it really puts a spotlight on the that person in a very unflattering way. One thing no one will ever accuse Rick of is modesty or humility.

I didnt attack your Christian viewpoints, and you cannot demonstrate how I did.

Yes you did, and yes I can.

Tell us. Just what do you find so offensive about our moral and religous thoughts?

To be honest with you, its that it isnt real. Its like Socrates. You dont know that you dont know. You dont know that all the religious and social issues are only being used to promote a perception of character and cover up a lack of substance. Its being used to demonstrate how Holy and Principled he is, even though his platform doesnt support it. Its a part of his constant hypocrisy, pretending to be above it all while being right there stuck in it, and bashing the other candidates on a personal level, and refusing to acknowledge any good ideas.

Imho, it appeared that the poster is pro-Newt and anti-Santorum, but not anti-religion. That's what I concluded after a brief look at his history, at least.

I'm not pro-Santorum, either. I'm pro-Newt, and that has little to do with his religion, except that it seems that he has changed. He is aware of the wrong decisions he has made in the past, and is trying to live in accordance with God's laws.

118
posted on 02/24/2012 3:26:23 PM PST
by trisham
(Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)

No you didn’t, and no you can’t. Nothing I said there was attacking religion or Christianity. In fact, my point was that you and your candidate are abusing Christianity in order to promote a vacuous candidacy based on character alone. I’ve said that multiple times, actually. You’re just obsessed with painting me as an anti-Christian since that’s all you have to support your candidate and yourself.

“In addition, when you whine about how you keep getting accused of being anti-moral... take that as a clue. You ARE anti-moral.”

If I was anti-moral, I would probably say that I am anti-moral. I’m pretty honest with what I stand for and believe in, and I don’t censor myself just to get along with people. It’s against my nature.

Your smears against me are vacuous and disgusting. But on the brightside, just about every Santorum supporter (almost all) are engaging in these kinds of smears all across this forum, and not just against me.

Your direct quote that “religious and social issues are only being used to promote a perception of character and cover up a lack of substance” is evidence enough for me that you have no use for religion and Christianity.

And if that’s not enough to zot you, then I’ll wait. Newbies like you ALWAYS give themselves away. Sooner or later you’ll make a comment from the heart that lays open your true convictions.

This really demonstrates a larger pattern in the nature of their support. They immediately attack the integrity of Newt Gingrich in order to support their candidate whenever any discussion comes up about actual policy. “Newt sat with Pelosi” etc, even though Saint Rick sat with Barbra Boxer on actual legislation.

They don’t tackle actual issues in any great depth. But they are quite marvelous at making the debate about Newt’s character or, in this case, the character of his supporters.

“Your direct quote that religious and social issues are only being used to promote a perception of character and cover up a lack of substance is evidence enough for me that you have no use for religion and Christianity.”

Getting a dictionary and maybe diagramming some sentences would help you out with this. I’m sure you’re confident, just like I’m sure your pal thought the poster of this thread was an ‘undercover Mittbot’. I assure you, however, that you know absolutely nothing about me. And all that you do know about me is a product of your delusions.

I really don’t like it when my integrity is attacked and I am called a liar like this, over and over again. The sooner this ugly nomination process is over, the better.

Click House Minority Whip Gingrich and 7th District congressional candidate Brenda Fitzgerald throw mock tea crates into the Chattahoochee River on April 15, 1994, as part of a "Taxpayer's Tea party" in Roswell, Georgia. GO NEWT!

"Look. I dont have the time right now to decipher your newbie libspeak that started in your anti-Santorum/anti-religious nonesense from post 56.

But I do find it amusing that you start quoting the Bible as you attack our Christian viewpoints.

IBTZ.

It's extremely unlikely he will be zotted.

His observations concerning a large number of Santorum supporters are right on IMHO. They attack other members of FR with BS accusations to impugn their character, inclusive of name calling, anytime they observe Santorum's weaknesses. I'm surprised Jim has put up with it for this long.

As nominee Romney would need the religious voters that are driving Santorum’s campaign. But why pick pushover Rick for VP when you could have someone who is at least good at politics like...The Reverend Huckabee!! I’ve been calling it for years now. West, Rubio, Gingrich, Rand Paul,Ryan, DeMint all nice for the tea party types but no one helps with the holy-rollers like the populist preacher from Arkansas, who although he believes Mormon are all going to hell would be happy to be the VP to Mitt.

I don't like seeing our candidates fighting amongst themselves. Newt is the only candidate who has addressed that issue, for which I truly admire and respect him. He experienced a religious conversion. He's incredibly intelligent and thoughtful.

I believe that the more voters learn about him, and get to know him, the more they will yearn to have the opportunity to vote for him.

133
posted on 02/24/2012 3:51:04 PM PST
by trisham
(Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)

“As for me. I reject that. Totally. I will NOT be told by a newbie (or anyone else) that religious and social issues are not be discussed and that if I do so they only cover up a lack of substance.”

I didn’t say that they aren’t to be discussed. I’m totally for it, and you don’t see me criticizing Newt Gingrich who has been, since at least the 80s, talking about the moral and religious decline in the United States. His war against the welfare state was full of messages just like that, incase you didn’t know. I’m saying that it is being cynically used to cover up a lack of substance, and I’ll add that the standards he is putting out there are not standards that he himself can meet.

Essentially they show that in about eight days time, Santorum has plummeted from ten points up in Michigan to down 5-6 points, and from about a tie in Arizona to 13-16 points behind Romney in that same timespan.

In other words, about a 15-point drop in each state over the course of a little over a week.

136
posted on 02/24/2012 3:52:07 PM PST
by TitansAFC
(Rick Santorum is the suicide bomber of the 2012 Primary; he's going to take us all out with him.)

attck Santorum’s issues if you want. What I have an issue is when Santorum-bashers call him “Saint Ricky”, “Sanctimonious”, “Slick Rick”, etc.

Mariner, you asked the question what would happen to the Santorum supporters and that you were concerned, and this is my answer. A good chunk may not even vote or if they do, they might just vote Romney. A small percentage may go back to Newt, but not anywhere near the numbers Newt needs to win outside the South. This poll confirms that trend. Notice Newt didnt gain, but what Santorum lost, almost all went to Romney. These people are NOT Romney supporters, theyre just tired, theyve had enough, and just want to be done with the whole thing. They’ve been through 4-5 candidates and everytime, EVERYTIME, the candidate gets hammered not only by the MSM, but even in the so-called “conservative” forums. This poll shows they are capitulating. If this was your goal, then congratulations.

You kept saying Santorum supporters like to positively spin. Well Im a supporter, but as you can tell, Im not spinning. This whole process has made me bitter, angry, and turned me off to the Election. After I felt like the voters spit on me (military) in 2008, I thought there was no doubt that we would be able to correct that great injustice. Now, I just dont even give a d@mn anymore. Why bother?

Isn't Michigan an open primary state? It's my understanding that the Dems have got all the UAW thugs lined up to play Chaos in the Republican primary. I don't know if we can draw ANY conclusion from Michigan.

It’s rare when I totally agree with a poster’s every word, so I will defer. I think Santorum tends toward a holier than Thou preachy style, that’s a turn on for some and a turn off for some. I also think he sometimes aims his Catholicism at his mentor, Catholic convert, Newt Gingrich, and I find that very tacky.

Every candidate is pro-life, save for the abortionist pig, Romney, and Newt Gingrich was the first to bring the issue of Obama’s attack on the Catholic Church and Freedom to light during one of the debates, so let’s not pretend that social issues are the exclusive realm of Rick Santorum.

Like most other issues, from Afghanistan and obama’s apology, Newt Gingrich is responsible for first bringing them to light.

He is the candidate with solid well-thought out solutions.
,
I think that’s Apollo5600’s point, but I don’t expect him to agree with me 100% either.

“What a joke, Newt did no favors to Santorum. Just last week Newt insulted him and he was given a pass here. Fair is fair.

Newt sunk his own boat.”

You must be referring to that thread where Newt allegedly called Santorum an “amateur”, but upon reading the actual quote and article revealed he was referring to Obama, and that the MSM lies, as usual.

You cannot demonstrate where Newt has ever been anything but gracious with the other candidates, except for Romney who frankly needs to be destroyed.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.